Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

orwell.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 273 posts

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#51

Post by jeffdavis »

saagarjha wrote: post #10

This article focuses on a utopia of worldy pleasures, and goes on to explain why such a place would be a pretty boring place to live. But that’s just human nature: we’re never permently satisfied with what we have. The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is, and that’s kind of impossible in a utopia. However, I still think there’s a way to get satisfaction out of a world…

What does learning mean outside the context of any problem to be solved?

Games are fun, but games almost always involve something that might be useful. But what is useful if everyone already has everything they need?

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#52

Post by dclowd9901 »

projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

I've always thought of Utopia being peace insofar as a society that cannot harm an individual, and cannot allow individuals to harm other individuals, which I suppose aligns pretty closely to Orwell's notion of "brotherhood".

Such simple principles would solve the issues of:

* racism

* homophobia

* moral indignation

* xenophobia

* extreme economic disparity, such that those with means are actively holding down or holding back those without

* lack of access to health services

If we solve all of those things, we'll still have problems. We'll still have people disagreeing, people fighting. People struggling. What we might also have, however, is the desire to also work with others, rather than go to our deaths over issues because of such potent underlying bitterness.

The human race is flawed enough as it is. We don't need manifest disagreements spawned by religion or dogma, for instance, to fuel the flames.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#53

Post by eezurr »

Note: I am responding to comments here, haven't read the article yet.

Utopia is not possible because the desires and wants of millions of people (focusing on a country) don't overlap with everyone else's 100%, or sometimes not at all. We also don't live long enough to truly appreciate what we have today, as I'm sure people from hundreds of years ago would think today's society is a utopia: (basically) infinite potable cold and hot water, heat and air conditioning, electricity, sewage removal, relative privacy, trash removal, modern medicine, fast, cheap transportation, a wide variety of fresh food all year round, internet... I could go on.

So maybe utopia is genuine appreciation on a personal level for what one has. You can't do this without contrast, and contrast is best developed from real experiences. Maybe one could spend a couple weeks out in the woods with canned food and a stream for water (and no electronics except a flashlight), and come back with a new found understanding for the amount of convenience and comfort one has in this modern life.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#54

Post by stcredzero »

saagarjha wrote: post #32
larrydag wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. founding fathers had another definition which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is very individualized. Suggests it is relevant to the one as opposed to relevant to the masses. Very anti-elitist on its own merit.

The “pursuit of happiness” is what is being discussed, given that “life” and “liberty” are already guaranteed. The question is, how exactly to pursue happiness.

Basically, keep striving until you are satisfied.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#55

Post by stcredzero »

orasis wrote: post #16
ballenf wrote: post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

Utopia is gratitude now.

It turns out, we are wired up for gratitude.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#56

Post by fucking_tragedy »

beaner wrote: post #28
saagarjha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you? Do you have no worries in the world?

Many do not. There is a theory of something called the Power Process, which states that for people to be happy, they need goals which require effort, and need to achieve at least some of those goals. The lack of meaningful goals which require effort in the first world may be responsible for much of the depression, suicide, and other issues that plague us today. I found this Medium post which quotes the relevant parts…

> There is a theory of something called the Power Process,

This is not a theory in the scientific sense. It's an idea Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote about in his manifesto.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#57

Post by EthanHeilman »

n4r9 wrote: post #41
projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

> Utopia is about letting people live in a manner that they would want One of the lessons I learnt from Huxley's Brave New World is that this phrasing is very ambiguous and the meaning of utopia is more complicated, if the word is indeed meaningful. The people in BNW live in the manner that they desire, but not many would call it a utopia. Sure, those desires themselves are the result of genetic and environmental con…

Dystopia's are often a form of Utopia. Thomas More's original Utopia is not necessary a perfect society, but a designed society. I would classify BNW as a Utopia even though it is a cautionary tale.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#58

Post by yojex »

ConceptJunkie wrote: post #44
n4r9 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Utopia is about letting people live in a manner that they would want One of the lessons I learnt from Huxley's Brave New World is that this phrasing is very ambiguous and the meaning of utopia is more complicated, if the word is indeed meaningful. The people in BNW live in the manner that they desire, but not many would call it a utopia. Sure, those desires themselves are the result of genetic and environmental con…

Between Huxley ("Brave New World") and Orwell ("1984"), I think Huxley saw the future more accurately, although Orwell has amazing insights. I actually thought that "Wall-E" was a good, and particularly accessible, commentary on utopia. Without the need to strive, we might all just turn into human potatoes. I'm not far from that now, which is pretty frightening.

I just want to mention here for those who haven't heard of it: Huxley's "Island" explores the complement to the ideas presented in "Brave New World", i.e. it is an imagining of utopia. I highly recommend it.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#59

Post by stcredzero »

jxramos wrote: post #27

Is anyone else intrigued that this is hosted on a Russian domain? I’m thinking ideological honeypot, lol.

Is anyone else intrigued that this is hosted on a Russian domain? I’m thinking ideological honeypot, lol.

This sort of fake refutation by association is exactly the kind of anti-intellectual tripe that reduces the S/N ratio of the internet to almost nothing.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#60

Post by psandersen »

projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

This is a great comment, and I just wanted to add that imagining what a fictional high tech utopia would look like was what inspired Iain M. Banks to write the culture series.

For anyone interested in tech and the far future its a must read.

Post reply on HN